These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[December] Balance Smorgasbord

First post First post
Author
RealityDaytrip
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#221 - 2015-10-18 20:24:58 UTC
I dunno, I feel like the gila with 2 dda rather than 3 can still solo just about any sub-BS, many of them it would still be able to defeat afk. Buff the muninn *\o/*
Blood Animus
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#222 - 2015-10-18 21:26:04 UTC
Dato Koppla wrote:

Maybe 2-3 month olds shouldn't be able to farm C3s so effectively because a certain ship is unbalanced? You want to retain your PvE farming ability at the cost of balancing the game?


You must not read because this hurts PVE more than PVP, I gave an example of how to retain the tank while lowering dps, which is rhe obvious goal of this to make PVP fits sacrifice a dps mod in the lows to bring them down a notch, which I can agree with, but in a way that doesn't smash the PVE aspect.

There aren't many ways to make money as a newbro in a wormhole while still being in the wormhole for content, short of huffing gas (boring and slow), scanning lower class holes for explo sites (no local here, even more dangerous than K space), or heading out to space to look for explo/DEDs (well now they're not very close to home). You could do PI but that's a good bit of effort to set it all up and running it daily. Our newbros have access to a C3 all day right next door, means we can come help them if they get caught and there are fewer deaths because some people won't mind scouting holes for them while watching YouTube. I'm not getting anything out of this besides newer pilots saying "I'm not in hole because I need money so I went out to NS and still can't find anything" then miss out on fights because they're not home and don't have steady income to start building their supply of ships.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#223 - 2015-10-18 21:39:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Rift
Blood Animus wrote:
Dato Koppla wrote:

Maybe 2-3 month olds shouldn't be able to farm C3s so effectively because a certain ship is unbalanced? You want to retain your PvE farming ability at the cost of balancing the game?


You must not read because this hurts PVE more than PVP, I gave an example of how to retain the tank while lowering dps, which is rhe obvious goal of this to make PVP fits sacrifice a dps mod in the lows to bring them down a notch, which I can agree with, but in a way that doesn't smash the PVE aspect.

There aren't many ways to make money as a newbro in a wormhole while still being in the wormhole for content, short of huffing gas (boring and slow), scanning lower class holes for explo sites (no local here, even more dangerous than K space), or heading out to space to look for explo/DEDs (well now they're not very close to home). You could do PI but that's a good bit of effort to set it all up and running it daily. Our newbros have access to a C3 all day right next door, means we can come help them if they get caught and there are fewer deaths because some people won't mind scouting holes for them while watching YouTube. I'm not getting anything out of this besides newer pilots saying "I'm not in hole because I need money so I went out to NS and still can't find anything" then miss out on fights because they're not home and don't have steady income to start building their supply of ships.



sounds like they joined the wrong group and should join a group somewhere where they can handle the pve

or work together
FT Cold
No Vacancies
No Vacancies.
#224 - 2015-10-18 22:15:28 UTC
I'm really pleased with most of the changes, though I have the following reservations:

The speed nerfs and buffs are really inconsequential, as they only amount to a few percent of their ships base speed. You're probably going to have to go a little deeper to get the required effects.

The orthrus will still be extremely overpowered even after this nerf. It simply has too much fitting, control, agility, and speed for a ship that is capable of dealing significant damage, and I don't think that hinging balance decisions on a new module that is unlikely to be adopted in a widespread fashion is a good design choice.

Please reconsider the punisher as a missile ship, the amarr frigate lineup already has strong laser choices, it may provide a strong progression to khanid ships or even an avenue toward redesign of other somewhat redundant and lackluster amarr hulls. It's not like people are using the maller much these days either.

The navy osprey fills a role that's already well filled in the navy and pirate cruiser lineup, we simply do not need to have yet another kitey missile cruiser that can shake off tackle easily. An idea I've heard before is to make the navy osprey a caldari version of the navy aug. Give it two utility highs, a hybird bonus, and a shield HP bonus. I think it's an interesting concept, and it might lead to a great ship with a variety of novel uses, instead of walking on well trodden ground.
Justin Cody
War Firm
#225 - 2015-10-18 23:54:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Justin Cody
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Breacher:
The Breacher is in a pretty decent place overall, but we think it's could use a bit of help to really shine (and it is quite underused) so we're planning this slight mobility improvement.
  • -0.08 inertia, +5 m/s

  • Tormentor:
    Another ship that's in a pretty decent place but that tends to be overlooked, so we're adding this nice quality of life improvement that also fits the general Amarrian theme of having plenty of backup drones.
  • +10m3 Dronebay

  • Rifter and Slasher:
    Rifter and Slasher are getting a moderate fittings buff to help artillery fits and to make it easier to use the utility highs.
  • Rifter: +5 CPU, +3 PWG
  • Slasher: +5 CPU, +2 PWG

  • Tristan:
    Slight speed drop to the current top-dog of T1 frigates to help even out the field. The Tristan is a great and flexible ship, and doesn't really need to be quite as fast as it currently is.
  • -10 m/s

  • Punisher:
    Let's talk about the Punisher.
    Quite a few people have asked about missile Punishers, but we currently aren't huge fans of dropping a missile T1 frigate into Amarr's stable without having solid support all along the T1 lineup for a missile-focused skillplan. With only Khanid T2 ships (and unbonused launchers on the droneships) further along the path, we feel this would act as a confusing set of breadcrumbs for a new player to follow.
    We also think that the "laser tank and gank" archetype deserves to be represented in Amarrian T1 frigates, especially to provide a less skill-intensive alternative to the Tormentor. We don't expect it to become a dominant solo powerhouse for veterans, but it will continue to be extremely good as a newer player PVE boat and to strengthen its (quite niche) existing role in T1 frigate gangs. The two midslot layout definitely hurts the ship's power and flexibility, but that can be an interesting tradeoff if compensated for in other ways.
    These changes give the Punisher one more slot than most T1 frigs, and increase damage slightly (4 effective turrets instead of 3.75) while reducing weapon cap use and adding the significant buff of an extra lowslot. In exchange it loses its utility high.

  • +1 Turret
  • +1 Lowslot
  • +10 PWG
  • +13 CPU
  • Replace the 5% damage bonus with -10% laser cap use per level

  • Firetail and Hookbill:
    We're planning moderate buffs to the two least used Navy Frigates. The Firetail now matches the Fleet Stabber and Fleet Hurricane tracking bonus, and the Hookbill gets a bit better with kinetic and a ton better with other damage types.
  • Firetail: Increase tracking bonus to 10% per level
  • Hookbill: Change damage bonus to 25% Kin, 20% Em/Therm/Exp

  • Navy Osprey:
    The Navy Osprey is well below the power curve and overshadowed by other ships overlapping its role. The goal of these changes are to refocus the ship as a flexible destroyer of small ships worthy of a favoured role in the Caldari Navy's auxiliary forces.
    All in all, these changes leave the Navy Osprey with a moderate damage increase (6.75 effective launchers instead of 6, and the added drones) with extra benefits when using non-kinetic damage types. The second utility high also opens up new options for energy warfare.

  • -1 Launcher (second utility high)
  • Change the damage bonus to 25% Kinetic, 20% EM/Therm/Exp
  • +100 pwg
  • +15 dronebay and bandwidth

  • Sacrilege:
    Quality of life bonus for roaming Sacs, while continuing to bring the ship closer in line with Amarrian (and Khanid) trends in drone use.
  • +50m3 dronebay

  • Worm and Gila:
    Two of the most dominant ships in their classes, we're going to tone them down a bit by bringing their slot numbers in line with most other drone ships. These represent fairly significant nerfs but we feel the ships remain among the strongest in their classes. Currently we have decided to leave the Rattlesnake alone, partially as it's not as dominant in its class as the smaller ships. However we won't rule out future changes.
  • Worm: -1 Lowslot, -20 CPU
  • Gila: -1 Lowslot, -20 CPU

  • Orthrus:
    Another extremely dominant ship, this nerf is relatively mild compared to the Orthrus' strength but we feel pretty comfortable moving incrementally here. I know that many people will be unhappy that we're not nerfing the Orthrus harder at this time, but we feel that especially combined with the addition of the missile disruptors we are best served by making this change (which is quite significant by most standards) and observing the results before moving further.
  • Reduce damage bonus to +15% per level

  • Barghest:
    The Barghest is underperforming a tad in our eyes, so this change provides a slight DPS buff at high skill levels (9 effective launchers vs the previous 8.75) while providing a second utility high.
  • -1 Launcher (second utility high)
  • Change damage bonus to 10% per level


  • T1 Frigate changes - All Good M8 - except the punisher*
    Sacrilege Change - Great I've always loved it.
    Gila/Worm Nerf - yeah they are stupid powerful
    Navy Frig/Cruiser Changes - All Good M8

    Ok So the Punisher:
  • +1 Turret - good
  • +1 Lowslot - good
  • +10 PWG - necessary for the above/turret changes
  • +13 CPU - necessary for the turret changes

  • Replace the 5% damage bonus with -10% laser cap use per level
  • This is unacceptable - you should just adjust lasers cap use so we don't need a passive gunnery bonus just to use the ship. Imagine if you will any gallente or caldari turret vessel that had a bonus like this effectively removing a gunnery bonus. This doesn't make it less susceptible to energy neuts. If it had a cap battery like bonus then ok that would be interesting but that cap use bonus to lasers deserves retirement like the KE lock.
    Tyberius Franklin
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #226 - 2015-10-19 00:30:43 UTC
    Justin Cody wrote:
    Barghest - It doesn't deserve a nerf at all - compare it to the rattlesnake.
    It's not being nerfed.
    W0lf Crendraven
    The Tuskers
    The Tuskers Co.
    #227 - 2015-10-19 00:33:57 UTC
    FT Cold wrote:
    I'm really pleased with most of the changes, though I have the following reservations:

    The speed nerfs and buffs are really inconsequential, as they only amount to a few percent of their ships base speed. You're probably going to have to go a little deeper to get the required effects.

    The orthrus will still be extremely overpowered even after this nerf. It simply has too much fitting, control, agility, and speed for a ship that is capable of dealing significant damage, and I don't think that hinging balance decisions on a new module that is unlikely to be adopted in a widespread fashion is a good design choice.

    Please reconsider the punisher as a missile ship, the amarr frigate lineup already has strong laser choices, it may provide a strong progression to khanid ships or even an avenue toward redesign of other somewhat redundant and lackluster amarr hulls. It's not like people are using the maller much these days either.

    The navy osprey fills a role that's already well filled in the navy and pirate cruiser lineup, we simply do not need to have yet another kitey missile cruiser that can shake off tackle easily. An idea I've heard before is to make the navy osprey a caldari version of the navy aug. Give it two utility highs, a hybird bonus, and a shield HP bonus. I think it's an interesting concept, and it might lead to a great ship with a variety of novel uses, instead of walking on well trodden ground.


    The nosprey is **** atm m8.
    Count Szadek
    Unbound Reborn
    #228 - 2015-10-19 04:01:22 UTC
    [Osprey Navy Issue, Osprey Navy Issue fit]

    Ballistic Control System II
    Ballistic Control System II
    Co-Processor II
    Damage Control II

    X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster, Navy Cap Booster 400
    Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
    Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I
    Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 400
    Warp Disruptor II
    50MN Cold-Gas Enduring Microwarpdrive

    Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
    Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
    Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
    Small Unstable Power Fluctuator I
    Rapid Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile

    Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
    Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
    Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


    Hobgoblin II x5

    this looks fun, i can dig this

    Justin Cody
    War Firm
    #229 - 2015-10-19 05:04:30 UTC
    Tyberius Franklin wrote:
    Justin Cody wrote:
    Barghest - It doesn't deserve a nerf at all - compare it to the rattlesnake.
    It's not being nerfed.


    good call...editing post
    Barrogh Habalu
    Imperial Shipment
    Amarr Empire
    #230 - 2015-10-19 06:10:55 UTC
    Justin Cody wrote:
  • Replace the 5% damage bonus with -10% laser cap use per level
  • This is unacceptable - you should just adjust lasers cap use so we don't need a passive gunnery bonus just to use the ship. Imagine if you will any gallente or caldari turret vessel that had a bonus like this effectively removing a gunnery bonus. This doesn't make it less susceptible to energy neuts. If it had a cap battery like bonus then ok that would be interesting but that cap use bonus to lasers deserves retirement like the KE lock.

    OTOH, you're getting more slots than other ships. In the end it's final stats that matter, not how you achieve them (mostly). Not that I'm fan of cap bonus, but this particular change doesn't break anything. You're getting stats improvements, a slot, little bit of DPS and considerable cut of cap consumption. When it's applied, who cares how it was achieved?
    Azazel The Misanthrope
    Oblivion's Pendulum
    Top Tier
    #231 - 2015-10-19 06:11:28 UTC
    Give Sac cap back!
    Suitonia
    Order of the Red Kestrel
    #232 - 2015-10-19 06:32:04 UTC
    Azazel The Misanthrope wrote:
    Give Sac cap back!


    It's base regeneration was actually boosted in the Rubicon expansion, it regenerates more now than it did prior to the rebalance.

    Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

    Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o

    Asa Shahni
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #233 - 2015-10-19 07:04:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Asa Shahni
    First, the sac change is the most awsome things I've heard this year when it comes to ship changes so thank you CCP.
    The Sacrilege was a great ahac before with it's decent DPS, great tank and range not to mention utility but now it has even more staying power with a second set of drones. \o/
    Second thing I care about in this change would be the Punisher.
    I think the 4 unbonused gun is a great idea but the cap bonus is **** and will just lead to players changing the weapon type.
    In my opinion, the best way to change that without removing the 4th turret would be to give him a 10% optimal range bonus and buffing the hull capacitor.
    Baby aHac Punisher and Inquisitor fleet anyone ?

    Also why not give the the "Sacrilege" treatement you gave the Damnation to the Vengeance ?
    Put the cap bonus into the hull and give a 10% rocket velocity instead and maybe a 15/30 dronebay please.
    Edriahn
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #234 - 2015-10-19 09:41:26 UTC
    Hey, buff my Widow, it looks too good to not be OP.

    [20:46:05] Komahal > pl is cancer

    Lady Ayeipsia
    BlueWaffe
    #235 - 2015-10-19 10:03:37 UTC
    I strongly dislike the suggested change to the punisher. My problem is that by eliminating an effective bonus to lasers such as damage or tracking, we are returning to the days of the AC punisher. Even a 10% bonus to cap doesn't compare to the zero cap and easier fitting of ACs. Why use the lasers at all? As for a path for newer players, so basically they should skip small energy turrets and go AC if they plan to fly a punisher. That seems counter to the purpose of the stated reason for change. If cap is the issue, why not increase the ships cap or recharge rate, keep it to 3 turrets and keep the laser damage bonus?
    Yngvar ayShorn
    Einheit X-6
    Ushra'Khan
    #236 - 2015-10-19 10:47:24 UTC
    Rifter needs more love. You'll give the Punisher one more Slot then all others? So, do the same to the Rifter, pls. +1 Mid or +1 Low.

    Whats about the Garmur? Was this Ship to fast for your Nerf-Bat?
    Whats about the Muninn? Is this brick flying to slow under your Buff-Radar?
    Whats about.. Stabber, Rupture, Vagabound? No love for them or are you running out of ducetape?

    Please come back with some seriouse sugestions for those mentioned ships. They nedd your love und you know it.

    +250.000 Skillpunkte für neue Accounts mit meinem Link!  -->> Klick mich <<-- -- Minmatar FactionWar --

    Anize Oramara
    WarpTooZero
    #237 - 2015-10-19 13:20:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Anize Oramara
    Sad about the Orthus nerf as I was rather hyped about finding a solid role for it in my PvE stable. The Blood Base Burner mission is a very annoying and underpaying mission (compared to other burners! before someone bites my head off) and the Orthrus is almost perfect to run it in a similar manner as other burners: fast and dangerous. The Orthrus and Barghest are not common PvE ships to begin with and the buff on the Barghest is not enough to make it PvE viable but that's another matter. Just very sad to have to remove the Orthus as a PvE ship now as well as it really is a very good looking ship.

    Currently with bling it can match other bling fit ships but be a lot less frustrating while still exciting due to a tendency to explode if you don't pay attention. Interestingly enough along with this change the only other well performing (but more frustrating) alternative to running this mission, the Gila, is also getting a nerf. I don't know if this change will make the Gila even more frustrating to run this mission (or even unable to run at all) than it is now but these changes are a huge blow to me ever running this mission again.

    I would have preferred a more PvP orientated nerf rather than a pure dps nerf. As is this change completely removes any hope of a partially T2 (using OH) fit Orthrus being viable for this mission and forces all bling combined with OH be required while still being unoptimal and frustrating.

    Well that's my feedback from a PvE view point, something that the Orthus is not known to be used for. Always sad when the limited pool of optimal PvE ships shrinks by one.

    A guide (Google Doc) to Hi-Sec blitzing and breaking the 200mill ISK/H barrier v1.2.3

    Mina Sebiestar
    Minmatar Inner Space Conglomerate
    #238 - 2015-10-19 13:23:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Mina Sebiestar
    Barghest really?

    Fine how about tempest fleet issue get his dmg up from cruiser to battleship dmg I don't see tier one pest dominating ...well...anything why is fleet pest overlooked.

    Barghest really?

    Some of nerfs looks spot on.

    Did anyone mention barghest to this ppl.

    You choke behind a smile a fake behind the fear

    Because >>I is too hard

    Alexis Nightwish
    #239 - 2015-10-19 14:17:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Alexis Nightwish
    epicurus ataraxia wrote:
    Alexis Nightwish wrote:
    Another failed opportunity to put a drone cruiser in the right place.

    Worm: 300% bonus to Light Combat Drone damage and hitpoints

    Rattle: 275% bonus to Sentry Drone and Heavy Drone damage and hitpoints

    Gila: 500% bonus to Medium Combat Drone damage and hitpoints


    The only thing you have to do to the Gila is change the broken as **** 500% bonus to 300%. That's it! So easy!


    Remember it does only have two drones, and previously was able to launch full flights of sentries or heavy drones.

    Damage is applied by the Gila through both missiles and drones, I would argue, that if damage is too high, the missile side of the equation may be a better place to address.

    You do know that all three of the Guristas ships have only two drones, right? And that all three have a 10% bonus to kinetic and thermal missile damage, right? There's nothing wrong with the damage the Gila does with missiles.

    The problem with the Gila is twofold:

    First, the 500% bonus is too damn high resulting in a massive amount of damage from Hammerheads (HAMs with Rage is 244 paper dps, the two Hammers are 380! before any damage mods). If it was a 300% bonus (228dps) that would be much much more sane for a cruiser as tanky as the Gila.

    Second, the 500% bonus to drone HP combined with it's stupid huge drone bay means that killing off the drones is simply not feasible. It can field FIVE flights (flight = 2 drones for Guistas ships). There's no way any other non-T3 cruiser can compete with that. The Worm can hold 2.5 flights of super drones. The Rattle can hold 3.5 flights of super drones (but since it can use heavies, sentries, and Geckos I don't see an issue with this, especially since the Rattle isn't broken in relation to the other BS).

    So why is the Gila a special snowflake? Like the Ishtar, it's CCP's baby and they'll never meaningfully nerf it.

    So when I said that the only thing you have to do to fix the Gila is change the 500% bonus to 300%, I was wrong. It also needs its drone bay reduced to 50m3.

    CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

    EVE Online's "I win!" Button

    Fixing bombs, not the bombers

    Lan Wang
    Federal Navy Academy
    Gallente Federation
    #240 - 2015-10-19 14:22:07 UTC
    tristan really needs a nerf to drones, maybe its dronebay, i think 1 flight of lights is enough for a t1 frig

    Domination Nephilim - Angel Cartel

    Calm down miner. As you pointed out, people think they can get away with stuff they would not in rl... Like for example illegal mining... - Ima Wreckyou*